Johnl...I guess I misunderstood your earlier post where you were suggesting a gun was registered to one owner.

I agree that folks should be able to own a semi-auto rifle, pistol etc. However, I would take your auto analogy a bit further. When you buy, and register, an auto it must meet some safety requirements or it cannot be used on public roadways. Why not the same with guns?

I am not sure where the line should be drawn. But, as a former cop, do you think it is appropriate for someone, with no training or experience with firearms, to walk into Walmart and purchase an AR-15, go on-line and order a 50 cartridge mag. and keep it in the house or car for "protection"? This is perfectly legal in many places. We have folks purchasing different cartridges for these weapons that have no clue about the ballistics. This seems like an abuse of a right to me.

As a gun owner (and, formerly, an avid shooter), I am still trying to imagine a self-defense situation I could possibly be in that would require me to empty a magazine with 50 .223 cal. rounds. I, simply, could not put so many of my neighbors in danger to protect my ass!

I may have bounced around in my typing. I do think a one gun, one owner idea is a good one. IF it is to be "passed down" then the new owner needs to qualify also.

I would also not be opposed to a "Safety class" being required before gun ownership. Of course the problem with that is more government. But still a good idea. Years ago it was a Felony in CA to posess Tear Gas without a license, yet a concealed weapon was a misdemeanor. That has changed, but it shows what happens when you have TOO many laws.

Personlly I think in an urban location a handgun makes far more sense than an AR-15 type weapon for home defense. ANYBODY who has spent any time in weapons defense (my 9+ years SWAT time) knows a "long gun" is harder to wield in close quarters than a hangun or submachine gun. It takes more training to be able to do that.

But this whole idea about how many bullets a weapon can hold is just dumb and it is formulated by people with NO experience. Give me a handgun with a 8 round magazine, then give me 10 magazines. You want to see how fast I can fire 80 rounds??? Magazine changes take a second or two if done properly. But once again, the people with no knowledge but with hollywood preconceived notions are making the laws.

Personally I consider my AR-15 "the end of the world gun". If things totally go to $hit in the future, that will protect me and my family. But did I buy it for that? Nope, I bought it because I was shooting military type rifle competitions and it was that or a M-14 (civilian model of course) and the AR was cheaper to feed. Funny how this "dangerous" weapon has yet to injure anybody....

Johnl...It sounds like you ARE suggesting another law...that would require gun registration for all. Something, to which, I agree.
New York has just passed stiff gun control measures. Can gun control not be a state's issue? Why should Utah need to meet New York's or California's gun laws?

I have no problems with checking people out BEFORE they buy a gun. ANY gun. After all you have to start somewhere. But to try to legislate WHAT kind of gun they buy (other than a tank) I think is pushing freedom a bit. After all, what happens if the law starts telling you what kind of car you can own in the US? It's a personal choice, just like a gun purchase is.

But what people really, really don't get is more laws will not solve anything. How many crimes are caused by citizens who obey the law and own legal guns? Hmm, very, very few. Now many crimes are caused by people who don't obey laws and have legal guns? Very few. How many crimes are caused by people who don't obey laws and have illegal guns? Lots. So what will a few more laws against guns solve? Nothing but make law makers feel like they accomplished something....

I think you mistyped, John. "How many crimes are caused by citizens who own guns and obey the law?" None, axiomatically. Anyone who obeys the law logically cannot be one who breaks the law.

Crimes are also only committed by people who don't obey laws. I think we all know that more crimes are committed by people who don't own any gun, legal or otherwise, than by those in possession of a gun.

With all due respect, your post is a bit confused and I humbly suggest you are not the only one making this comparison to suggest that most gun crimes (not including wrongful possession) are caused by people holding unlicensed or illegal guns. The statistics simply don't bear this out. In fact, the latest survey of inmates in prisons on this subject demonstrate the stark opposite to be true. Only 15% of state inmates carried or used a gun in commission of their crimes for which they serve a sentence, and only 13% in federal prison did so.

Why is it that so many claim that the USA is overflowing with bad guys with illegal guns? If it's true, then serious gun control should never be perceived as the enemy. If it's not true, many people say it is so in order to support a false argument that personal defense requires gun ownership.

Well first of all don't belive the statistics. Let me see what my 30 years as an LEO taught me.

1. Smart people sedom get caught
1. Smart people who get caught seldom go to trial.
1. Smart people who get caught and go to trial seldom get found guilty.

Why? Because our justice system isn't about justice. It's an adversary system between two attorneys. So how many acts of violence involving illegal weapons make these statistics? ONLY the ones who get caught. Which is pretty much the tip of the iceburg. But that isn't what they want to show you on the news or put in the reports. Spend 30 years "on the streets" and your opinion would be different.

As to your statistics. Look at them more carefully. How many of these people in prison, or federal prison (give me a break you mean country club prison right???) are actually DANGEROUS felons?? Not as many as you think. Take a look at the law books at all the crimes that are felonies? Just because it is a felony doesn't mean it is is violent. Heck 20 years or go Marajuana possession was a felony, now it's a ticket (or getting legal in a few states). So you can wave your statistics at me all you want, and I'll just laugh because quite frankly you don't have a clew. Take a statistics class. Two people can take the same stats to argue opposing views depending on how they tweak them. Before I believe any statistical data I want to see what the pool was and the system for analysing it and quite frankly what the agenda of the person publishing the statistics was.

I think a reasonable precaution, and minimal precaution would be to require anyone with a semi auto weapon to keep it locked up if there is anyone below the age of 21 in the home. Or...if there is anyone with a history of mental illness, criminal history, or spousal abuse in the home.

In other words, if you just called the police on your son, you better lock up the weapons.

You are far nicer than me. In any household with people under the age of 18 (other than the owner hopefully) the weapons should be unloaded and locked. A gun safe is a cheap way of protecting your gun. That way accidents are less likely to happen.

Is mine locked? Nope, but the firing pin of my AR is removed making the weapon useless. But when I lived with people under 18 (or anybody who isn't firearms knowledgable) it was locked.

Well you see, the people of the left side of this issue are terrified of the people on the right, and the general populous as a whole, with their freedoms and all that old fashioned stuff. The General populous are nothing but a bunch of lawless savages that have to be boxed in so that not only will they be prohibited from harming the ruling class, but also prohibited from harming themselves.
Damn, what the hell would we do without the rapidly growing ruling class.
We'd probably forget how to wipe our own asses.

The people on the left are terrified of those with freedom?
The left is the ruling class?
Oddly enough the lefties I know run to soccer moms hoping their kids don't get shot in class. They say they are afraid of heavily armed psychos with military hardware.
Have you ever heard an actual leftiy state the opinions above on this forum or in person?
If there is a ruling class in this country it is the very rich, like everywhere else.
Are you sure the very rich are mostly lefties?
I have read the new gun law in New York and those proposed elsewhere and do not find the part where they are planning to disarm the population.
Even in the case of Assault riffles it states that those who own them can keep them.
There is an earnest effort by those who make money off the slaughter to continue to do so by misrepresenting the facts but the laws are written docs for all to see.
I am a lifelong conservative gun owner by the way. I do my best to base my analysis on the actual opinions of the left.
Remember when most conservatives did this and we had a functional Congress?

But this whole idea about how many bullets a weapon can hold is just dumb and it is formulated by people with NO experience. Give me a handgun with a 8 round magazine, then give me 10 magazines. You want to see how fast I can fire 80 rounds??? Magazine changes take a second or two if done properly. But once again, the people with no knowledge but with hollywood preconceived notions are making the laws.

Johnl...I appreciate your perspective as a LEO.

You are an experienced gun user. That is my point. Of course someone that knows how to use any gun (even a revolver with speed loaders) can get off a lot of rounds fast. But, it takes practice. Where I see the danger in large magazines is from those that "lose it" and start shooting up the place.

Maybe the high capacity magazines should be purchasable only with a safey certificate, much like a hunting license. When I was a kid (under eighteen) in S Dak., I had to present my hunter safety cert. to the clerk to buy ammo.

Speaking of law makers...did you see that photo of Feinstein with her finger on the trigger in a photo op? Chills me!

Well you see, the people of the left side of this issue are terrified of the people on the right, and the general populous as a whole, with their freedoms and all that old fashioned stuff. The General populous are nothing but a bunch of lawless savages that have to be boxed in so that not only will they be prohibited from harming the ruling class, but also prohibited from harming themselves.
Damn, what the hell would we do without the rapidly growing ruling class.
We'd probably forget how to wipe our own asses.

I don't know where I fall in your "pigeon-holing" and, frankly, don't care. But, as a gun owner, I see 30,000 people a year dying from guns and grade school children slaughtered in classrooms and I have to step back, take a breath and evaluate if we can do something about it.

someone, with no training or experience with firearms, to walk into Walmart and purchase an AR-15, go on-line and order a 50 cartridge mag. and keep it in the house or car for "protection"? This is perfectly legal in many places. We have folks purchasing different cartridges for these weapons that have no clue about the ballistics. This seems like an abuse of a right to me.

I fully agree. The idea of some completely inexperienced cheechako spraying bullets at a bad guy just because he can is scary. Along with reducing crime, I expect we'll see more collateral damage resulting from this incredible surge in gun and ammo hoarding. It's a classic case of unintended consequences (of the left's desire to emasculate the Second Amendment). Maybe the rush to arms will subside when the Congress overwhelmingly rejects Obama's overzealous and statistically contraindicated program due to pressure from voters and the NRA.

Despite my marksmanship medal in the military based on my pistol performance, I'd have no business packing a weapon without significant professional training in the legal, moral, psychological, safe, practical, and tactical use of firearms for self defense. I have done little since then but plink at pop cans and euthanize several fatally injured animals illegally, and would thus not even think of carrying until I've completed that training and finished my research into guns and ammunition in order to optimize their ratio of collateral safety to practical effectiveness.

Two issues in particular quickly squelched any interest in buying an AR-15: the odds of my needing one in my remaining life span are negligible and I would not become sufficiently expert in its use to safely use one for self defense. Those and even scarier looking guns are all over the shelves of local stores ripe for the picking at prices lower than on the internet. I chuckled at the long, curved 50(maybe more; they were HUGE)-round magazines lying on the shelves of our local True Value hardware store alongside 40-pound boxes of ammunition, as easy to buy as wrenches over in the hand tool section. The cashier literally doesn't even bat an eye when your shopping cart includes two blueberry muffins, several thousand rounds of various types of ammo, tampons, a couple of 50-round magazines, and a water heater thermostat.

That, and the realization that any gang-banger can buy them like popcorn, is a vote FOR owning one. Ya don't want to go to an AR-15 fight armed only with that handgun pictured above.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum